Islam and Women

Originally posted by shavixmir
Well, that negates punishment for sure.

But if two consenting adults want to slice off their genitalia or whatever... that's up to them.
If it's physically destructive I would probably prefer them (even if they're consenting) to get some therapy... just to make sure...

But hell, I'd beat AthousandYoung with a stick to within an inch of his life if he wanted me to.

And I'd make you get a job!

You'd suffer more I bet. Honest work must be like Kryptonite to you.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
But one that tolerates beatings for pleasure is advanced!

You know what? I know that one was sarcastic, but I think you may actually believe it in your refusal to combat fascist movements in the Middle East.

Originally posted by scherzo
You know what? I know that one was sarcastic, but I think you may actually believe it in your refusal to combat fascist movements in the Middle East.

Which repressive regime should I combat first -- Iran or Israel?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Which repressive regime should I combat first -- Iran or Israel?

Iran is not fascist. I referred very specifically to fascist regimes, such as Israel, that destroyed land and cultures, has its own secret police, has an army that protects the settlers instead of reigning them in, near-single party rule, and funding of fascists in Lebanon (the Phalanges).

Originally posted by scherzo
Iran is not fascist. I referred very specifically to fascist regimes, such as Israel, that destroyed land and cultures, has its own secret police, has an army that protects the settlers instead of reigning them in, near-single party rule, and funding of fascists in Lebanon (the Phalanges).

Israel's not a fascist regime, however loudly and often you trumpet the contrary. Sorry! That's why I used the much more useful and accurate term repressive. Israel oppresses the Palestinians; Iran oppresses its own people. Or do you think the Bahá'í should be persecuted.

Originally posted by Nemesio
So, for all intents and purposes, the 'beating' is really symbolic and not literal, right? That is,
if no bruising, bleeding, or even pain is present, it's not actually a 'beating' in any literal sense.
If this is true, I am glad to hear that.

But this reading you offer, and the scholars who support it, are merely offering an interpretation, r ...[text shortened]... gue with someone who professes to be a Moslem, but (literally) beats his
wife?

Nemesio

So, for all intents and purposes, the 'beating' is really symbolic and not literal, right?

That is, if no bruising, bleeding, or even pain is present, it's not actually a 'beating' in any literal sense.

You can say that.

Just to make it clear, there is always a differnt use for Arabic words between the language use, and the Islamic use (We call 'Sharee'😉.

In other words, the same word may mean something in its usual use, but when it is related to law, or 'Sharea' it may mean somethign different. (I'm sorry if it is not clear, I just find it diffecult to find the correct words).

To give an example: Muslims pray five time a day. This prayer is a practice, not just words said to GOD. The Arabic word for prayer is 'Salat' which literaly supplication. But the same word is used to refere to the worship of prayer (the practive).

The same thing could be applied to the verse under question (Al Nessa 4:34). Yes the word used in this verse literaly means beating in the general meaning without any specification. So without the explaination of the prophet it could be any type of beating. But the prophet defined the Sharea meaning of the word in the verse. So a Muslim shouldn't use the literal meaning because it will contradict a direct teaching of the prophet.

I hope my language is clear.

But this reading you offer, and the scholars who support it, are merely offering an interpretation, right?

As I explained before, it will be an interpretation if the prophet didn't address the point. But as the prophet did address this point, and clarify what does it exactly means, then there is no place of interpretation. I mean if some give a different interpretation he will be mainly contradecting the prophet, and no muslim will accept that for himself.

I mean, it's patent that there are other Moslems who actually take this literally, right?

This will fail under two categories:

1- Ignorant who don't know realy what Islam teaches. And there are many of them. This person needs education and the problem will be solved. There was a period of time where Islamic studies was very restricted, and mainly culture was the source of the information for Muslims. So people grew up thinking that what their culture tells them is actully a teaching of Islam which is not true in many cases, including this issue.

2- Other sects that claim to be Muslims but have a different view of Suna (Hadith). And as the explaination of the beating is in Hadith, so if someone or some sect question the Hadith, then he/it can ignore the prophet teachings and stick the literal meaning. Example of these sects are the Shea of Iran. 90% of the population are Shea, and Shea refuses a lot of the Hadith accepted by the majority of Muslims (Shea are around 10% of Muslims population). So you will find the government of Iran and Shea of Iran have a different view of almost everything in Islam, so I consider it a different religion.

Another example are the sect that deny the Suna altogather. They only stick to Quran as the only source. So they of course will ignore the Hadith and take the literal meaning.

In either cases such behaviour of rejecting the Suna is not accepted by the Majority of Muslims, so what results from it can't be considered an Islamic behaviour. It only represents the point of view of the followers of that sect.

How do
you approach dialogue with someone who professes to be a Moslem, but (literally) beats his
wife?


Depending on his type of the previous two categories;

If he is from category 1, the solution is easy. Education. Some education will resolve the problem, and many Muslim scholars are working to correct this mainly culturer behaviour.

If he is from category 2, the problem is more serious. This person has a different faith system. He has to accept Islam first !!!

Originally posted by ahosyney


[b]How do
you approach dialogue with someone who professes to be a Moslem, but (literally) beats his
wife?


Depending on his type of the previous two categories;

If he is from category 1, the solution is easy. Education. Some education will resolve the problem, and many Muslim scholars are working to correct this mainly culturer behaviour. ...[text shortened]... blem is more serious. This person has a different faith system. He has to accept Islam first !!![/b]

And how do you approach dialogue with a non-Muslim who believes that a husband should not beat his wife in any manner?

You have explained why it is better to beat your wife lightly, or even just symbolically, rather than to administer a full beatdown with a folding chair -- the former is compatible with the prophetic interpretation, while the latter is compatible merely with the original language of the Koran.

But what reasons can you offer to convince me that it is better to beat your wife lightly with a toothpick rather than not beat her at all? What reasons can you offer to convince me that a wife in fact has or ought to have an obligation to obey the husband and guard his stuff? If I were to assert authority over my wife and demand her obedience while brandishing a toothpick, what reasons can you give me to justify this if she counters that in virtue of her personhood and autonomy, she should be free to pursue her own interests unconstrained by an obligation to guard my stuff?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
And I'd make you get a job!

You'd suffer more I bet. Honest work must be like Kryptonite to you.

Only horses and slaves work.

Originally posted by black beetle
Islam and Women?? Poor women🙁

But, to be frank, Christianism and Women is just an awful pair too🙂

Originally posted by black beetle
But, to be frank, Christianism and Women is just an awful pair too🙂

...maybe coz that "god" of the religions based in patriarchy...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Israel's not a fascist regime, however loudly and often you trumpet the contrary. Sorry! That's why I used the much more useful and accurate term repressive. Israel oppresses the Palestinians; Iran oppresses its own people. Or do you think the Bahá'í should be persecuted.

The Baha'i are irrelevant. That's a whole religious group. I have nothing against them.

Israel is fascist in that it has repressive government, an ethnic cleansing program, and has funded self-described fascist regimes in the past, including the Phalanges.